Well, prior to the Enlightenment and the explosion of Enlightenment Republics replacing mostly monarchial forms of government, the only speech that was limited was direct criticism of the monarch, and usually blasphemy.

At the beginning of the Enlightenment, there was a general throwing off of shackles, but also there were the seeds of thought-crime, with the sense that Enlightened folks knew better than everyone else and had the right to force everyone to conform to Enlightened notions of life, the universe, and everything. These seeds really blossomed in the 20th century, and show no signs of slowing down.

So, insofar as the Enlightenment approach to governance is a “Left” ideology (the origin of the “Left-Right” spectrum is the division between supporters and opponents of the French king), it’s been in power for the past 400-or-so years, and has spawned prolific attempts to limit speech. The “Right” (monarchist) ideology was much more limited in its limitations on speech.

UAWildcatx2

Scariest part of all of this: “said he favors outlawing speech that would be grossly unpopular.” So whether people agree with you or not would be the new test. Also scary, his attempt to justify:

“I mean where do you think you can, that the university can’t deal with ensuring the route it has environment that is not oppressive or hostile because obviously a campus, especially certain types of campuses where there’s a lot of — where — that are geographically compact, that have a lot of working and living situations in a close area to create a campus atmosphere”

Really, it’s think what you want to think and say what you want to say, so long as we agree with it. Law school graduate, everyone.

Becky

That quote is utterly incomprehensible. Did someone take the words that he said and remove every other one? Or jumble them up randomly? Do the enemies of free speech even know that speech is meant to communicate?

What this guy is doing is groping through the darkness of modernity towards an insight the church has always maintained:

42. From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man. For, if nature had really granted them, it would be lawful to refuse obedience to God, and there would be no restraint on human liberty. It likewise follows that freedom in these things may be tolerated wherever there is just cause, but only with such moderation as will prevent its degenerating into license and excess. And, where such liberties are in use, men should employ them in doing good, and should estimate them as the Church does; for liberty is to be regarded as legitimate in so far only as it affords greater facility for doing good, but no farther. – Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (emphasis mine)

Our political opinions on things like “free speech” are tragically uninformed and stupidly black and white.

Willard

Sadly this appears to be true for the most part. However, nobody should forget the treatment shown to the Dixie Chicks for merely distancing themselves from Dear Leader Bush.

Peggy

That was a market response from the public, not an agent of the government prohibiting free speech.

I have never heard a Dixie Chicks song for the record. Not into country.

chezami

Agreed. The difference is that when conservatives want to muzzle free speech it happens clannishly, and not vie draconian laws and speech code. The left’s first instinct is to try to crush it at law.

Willard

Yes, much to the shame of the left.

Liam

Just devil’s advocate here: frat boys aren’t known for their self restraint. How long can we expect freedom to be plausible without proper stewardship? If the students were self-policing enough to control these racist productions there would be no issue in the first place. He’s proposing an amputation, the question is whether we can save the limb.